Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 20:34 19/06/2000, Rick JELLIFFE wrote: >Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > > > The trouble is, to go back a week or so, there is insufficient > > evidence that XSL FO *is* all-encompassing. If you reject it in favour > > of XSLV for simple jobs, we have to be very sure that its up to the > > really serious design/typesetting jobs. Which it does not appear to > > me, and I am sure the XSL WG would agree that they have made > > compromises already. > >I cannot find any posting that relates to this. I can see Marcus Carr's >thread on whether FOs represent a good architectural approach, and also >the recent one on what is the most appropriate level, and also one >mentioning aural stylesheets. > >But nothing anywhere actually specifying any hard details. What features >are missing from XSL-FO? Perhaps Sebastian could give some details: I >for one would find it useful to have some idea of what is missing or >where they have gone wrong. As an outsider, I have seen many discussions on the XSL list regarding the limitations/problems with XSL FO. Running headers and footers spring to mind ... But I'm not up on it all, so I would recommend having a wander through the XSL list archive (I think there is one). J ------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@s... *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
